In re the Estate of Nuerge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Nuerge

18 A.D.2d 939, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4298

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 25, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 939 (In re the Estate of Nuerge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Estate of Nuerge, 18 A.D.2d 939, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to probate a will, the contestants appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, entered March 22, 1962, which, upon a directed verdict during a jury trial, admitted the propounded instrument to probate. Decree reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted as to the issues of testamentary capacity, fraud and undue influence, with costs to the contestants payable out of the estate. In our opinion, it was prejudicial error for the learned Surrogate to exclude the evidence which was sought to be introduced by the contestants; the Surrogate also unduly restricted the examination and cross-examination of witnesses called by contestants. In the interest® of justice a new trial is required. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding to probate a will, the contestants appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, entered March 22, 1962, which, upon a directed verdict during a jury trial, admitted the propounded instrument to probate. Decree reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted as to the issues of testamentary capacity, fraud and undue influence, with costs to the contestants payable out of the estate. In our opinion, it was prejudicial error for the learned Surrogate to exclude the evidence which was sought to be introduced by the contestants; the Surrogate also unduly restricted the examination and cross-examination of witnesses called by contestants. In the interest® of justice a new trial is required. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 939, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-nuerge-nyappdiv-1963.